Week 4 Discussion\u00a0– Due Week of October 31, 2022<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
From\u00a0Handbook of Public Administration:<\/p>\n
Chapter 32, “Embracing Ethical Principles for Public Action.”<\/p>\n
Chapter 33, “Understanding the Obligations of Codes of Ethics<\/p>\n
After reviewing the discussion preparation, respond to the following:<\/p>\n
Discuss approaches to become good at ethical (cultural) leadership. In your narrative, review ways you can use two (or more) of the leadership styles referenced<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Read the following article to prepare for this week’s discussion:<\/p>\n
Testing the Influence of Autocratic Leadership, Democratic Leadership, and Public Service Motivation on Citizen Ratings of an Agency Head\u2019s Performance.<\/p>\n
Testing the Influence of Autocratic Leadership, Democratic Leadership, and Public Service Motivation on Citizen Ratings of An Agency Head’s Performance\u00a0<\/p>\n
This content may contain URLs\/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein.<\/p>\n
Contents<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Review of literature<\/p>\n
Autocratic and democratic leadership<\/p>\n
Autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, and perceptions<\/p>\n
PSM<\/p>\n
PSM, leadership, and perceptions regarding leaders’ performance<\/p>\n
Method<\/p>\n
Experimental design<\/p>\n
Results<\/p>\n
Discussion<\/p>\n
Limitations<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Appendix<\/p>\n
Control group vignette<\/p>\n
Autocratic leadership vignette<\/p>\n
Democratic leadership vignette<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Footnotes<\/p>\n
Full Text<\/p>\n
Listen<\/p>\n
Top of Form<\/p>\n
Research is lacking concerning the impact of leadership styles on citizen attitudes toward the performance of government leaders. To address this gap, an online experimental survey was conducted to determine the effect of leadership styles on respondents’ perceptions regarding a fictitious superintendent’s performance in a school district. The results demonstrate that democratic leadership practices enhanced the performance reviews of the superintendent, while autocratic leadership practices decreased them. Respondents’ level of public service motivation (PSM) was also found to have a positive effect on the superintendent’s performance ratings. Furthermore, democratic leadership style moderated the relationship between PSM and the performance ratings assigned by respondents. In particular, individuals with high PSM rated the performance of democratic leaders higher as compared to individuals with low PSM. However, autocratic leadership was not found to moderate the relationship between PSM and the superintendent’s performance. These results are thoroughly discussed in the paper.<\/p>\n
Keywords: Agency head performance; autocratic leadership; democratic leadership; public service motivation<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
Unlike the vast majority of governmental functions, the performance of some agencies (e.g., education, transportation, public works, and the like) can easily be displayed, understood, and evaluated. As a result, governments often share this information on their websites, as well as on social networking services, such as Facebook and Twitter. This type of reporting ultimately gives citizens the information necessary to rate the performance of agency leaders. However, theories suggest that citizens’ perceptions of leaders may not always be based on objective criteria. In other words, citizens consider more than just actual measures when appraising the performance of agency heads (Caillier, [10]; Chingos, Henderson, & West, [12]; Porumbescu, [50]; Van Ryzin, [61]).<\/p>\n
Consistent with implicit leadership theories (e.g., Den Hartog et al., [20]), one factor that may affect perceptions of actual performance is the leadership style of agency heads. Leadership styles have long been found to influence employee perceptions of leaders in organizational settings (e.g., Van Vugt & De Cremer, [62]). However, no study has been identified to determine whether or not leadership styles affect the way citizens view the performance of agency heads, where performance refers to their entrusted agency’s performance information. Consequently, the connection between agency performance and leadership styles is examined in this paper.<\/p>\n
There are many types of leadership styles. One that is especially relevant today in governmental institutions around the globe is autocratic leadership (Roberts, [52]), which is currently becoming more widespread in many nations (Mounk, [41]). Research studies examining autocratic leadership are numerous, with much of the focus on the negative effect of autocratic leaders on employee motivation (e.g., De Cremer, [16]). Democratic leadership is another relevant style. It is known as a normative practice (i.e., an ideal style) and is starkly different in comparison to autocratic leadership. Both autocratic and democratic leadership are examined in this article. Based on implicit leadership theory, it is argued here that citizens will rate the performance of the democratic leader high while rating the performance of the autocratic leader as low.<\/p>\n
Another factor that may influence views of governmental leaders is public service motivation (PSM). Taylor ([59]) argues that PSM enhances citizen perceptions, that is, it positively affects confidence in government and government service. Caillier ([10]) found that public service motivation had a positive impact on an agency’s perceived performance. This suggests that such motives are critical in citizen attitudinal research in that they can influence how citizens view government as well as its leaders. Despite these studies, little is known empirically or theoretically about the connection between PSM and such perceptions. Drawing on both implicit leadership theory and social categorization theory, it is argued that high PSM individuals will rate democratic leaders high on the performance scale and autocratic leaders low on the scale. PSM is expected to have this type of effect on performance ratings because democratic governance is a core component of PSM (Vandenabeele, [64], [65]). Therefore, high PSM individuals may be primed to rate democratic leaders higher, as the values of democratic leaders and individuals with high PSM are analogous.<\/p>\n
Why is it important to examine factors that influence attitudes regarding agency performance among citizens? Perceptions have been found to affect legal compliance and support for programs. Positive perceptions also increase the likelihood of choosing a career in government, like the military (Brinkerhoff, Wetterberg, & Wibbels, [\u00a08]; Levi, Sacks, & Tyler, [36]; Weatherford, [66]). Moreover, perceptions can assist officials in determining the effectiveness of their services (Melkers & Thomas, [40]; Swindell & Kelly, [58]).<\/p>\n
To examine the relationship between leadership styles (i.e., autocratic and democratic) and citizen attitudes, a survey was administered to respondents who were randomly assigned to one of three vignettes: (\u00a01) control group vignette, (\u00a02) autocratic leadership vignette, (\u00a03) and democratic leadership vignette. In each vignette, the agency leader was a superintendent responsible for leading a county school district. This article extends citizen attitudinal literature in finding that the performance of the superintendent in the democratic leadership vignette was rated the highest, followed by the control group vignette, and then the autocratic leadership vignette. This result suggests that democratic leadership has a positive effect on perceived performance, while autocratic leadership has a negative impact. Finally, individuals with high PSM rated the performance of the democratic leader higher as compared to individuals with low PSM. In contrast, individuals with high PSM did not rate the performance of autocratic leaders higher when compared to individuals with low PSM.<\/p>\n
Review of literature<\/p>\n
Autocratic and democratic leadership<\/p>\n
The notions of autocratic leadership and democratic leadership were popularized when Lewin, Lippitt, and White ([37]) published the results of a series of experiments involving children and adult leaders. Autocratic leadership, also sometimes known as authoritarian leadership (e.g., Bass, [\u00a05]), refers to a series of practices used by leaders to centralize power, authority, and decision-making (De Hoog, Greer, & Den Hartog, [18]). In terms of government, officials who practice this style are strong-willed and tend to monopolize policymaking. Leaders adopting an autocratic practice also view subordinates “as either contributors or obstacles to efforts to meet their goals” (de Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, [19], p. 630).<\/p>\n
In contrast to autocratic leaders, democratic leaders distribute responsibility, empower subordinates, and include them in the decision-making process (Gastil, [25]). In other words, while autocratic leaders use control tactics in organizations, democratic leaders employ an egalitarian approach. Thus, autocratic leadership and democratic leadership are at opposite ends of the spectrum, meaning that most leaders fall somewhere along this scale, depending on the level of participation allowed by followers or the amount of control exerted by leaders over decisions (Schoel, Bluemke, Mueller, & Stahlberg, [53]).<\/p>\n
Given that influential leaders throughout history have taken either an autocratic or a democratic leadership approach, both practices have been extensively studied in a variety of settings. Despite the fact that autocratic leadership can be effective in certain situations (e.g., when unpopular decisions need to be made) and contexts (e.g., in paramilitary agencies), the consensus is that democratic leadership practices generally yield more desirable outcomes; however, the differences between the two approaches in terms of performance are more tenuous (De Cremer, [16]; Gastil, [25]; Harms, Wood, Landay, Lester, & Lester, [29]; Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, & De Cremer, [63]).<\/p>\n
In this paper, an agency leader’s performance is considered analogous to how it is construed in the private sector. It reflects what the leader’s subordinates produce collectively or the agency’s objective outcomes. The fictitious leader here is a school superintendent whose performance, similar to other school superintendents, is based on the objective performance used to rate school districts across the United States, namely, student achievement (e.g., Meier & O’Toole, [39]). Indeed, student achievement is the primary indicator used in assessing superintendents (e.g., Cronin & Usdan, [15]).<\/p>\n
Autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, and perceptions<\/p>\n
Much research has been done to identify the leadership characteristics that have the greatest effect on the performance of organizations. Individuals have their own notions regarding the essential characteristics of ideal leaders, causing them to develop personal theories of leadership. Such implicit leadership theories are therefore used by individuals to formulate judgments about leaders (Den Hartog et al., [20]). To be more precise, implicit leadership research argues that individuals develop cognitions, based on experiences or socialization, about the attributes and behaviors that ideal leaders should possess. These cognitions represent schemas or lay theories which assist individuals in interpreting the behaviors of leaders (Subramaniam, Othman, & Sambasivan, [57]). Because these cognitions are developed over time, they are ingrained in the memory of individuals (Epitropaki & Martin, [22]) and are used to evaluate the effectiveness of leaders, even though these perceptions are not always based on reality (Lord & Maher, [38]). In this sense, implicit leadership theories is a bias that affects how individuals rate a leader (Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, [43]), regardless of the leader’s effectiveness (Staw & Ross, [55]). Therefore, when presented with objective performance information about a leader, individuals are likely to base a large portion of their ratings on the leadership style of the leader and whether or not it closely matches their expectations. These expectations constitute their prototype of an ideal leader (e.g., Foti & Luch, [24]). If the leader’s behaviors are consistent with their prototype, individuals will approve of the leadership style and may rate the leader higher than his or her performance indicates. If the leader’s actions are contrary to what individuals expect from a leader, they will disapprove of the leadership practice and may rate the leader lower than his or her performance information suggests, even if the leader’s performance is impressive.<\/p>\n
Democratic leadership and autocratic leadership fits neatly within implicit leadership theory and may influence perceptions of an agency leader’s performance. In particular, democratic leadership is widely viewed as more acceptable than autocratic leadership (Schoel et al., [53]). Van Vugt and De Cremer ([62]) found that more individuals preferred a democratic leader to manage public good dilemmas than an autocratic leader. Jayasingam and Cheng ([32]) determined that followers rated the performance of democratic Malaysian managers in the private and public sectors higher than that of autocratic leaders. The point is that individuals generally do not approve of the methods used by autocratic leaders (Van Vugt et al., [63]), as they unilaterally make decisions that serve their self-interests and not those of the people they lead (Van De Vliert, [60]). Thus, these decisions are forced on followers, thereby demonstrating little regard for them (De Cremer, [17]). Autocratic leadership is also often equated with despotic or abusive leadership styles (e.g., Harms et al., [29]). As a result, Jayasingam and Cheng ([32]) argue that such methods are incompatible with the norms of society.<\/p>\n
The fact that autocratic leadership is perceived negatively in research indicates that it may not fit citizens’ notion of the prototypical leader. This further suggests that citizens may rate the performance of autocratic leaders as low, irrespective of their agency’s performance. This line of reasoning is consistent with framing theories (e.g., Faulkner, Martin, & Peyton, [23]), as well as implicit leadership theories (e.g., Subramaniam et al., [57]). More specifically, practices, such as autocratic leadership, are widely unpopular, thus implanting negative impressions in citizens’ minds about leaders who utilize these practices. This memory trace, in turn, adversely affects their feelings toward these leaders’ effectiveness, causing citizens to give autocratic leaders low ratings. Conversely, democratic leadership is expected to positively affect performance ratings, because it is closely aligned to individual conceptions of leaders (e.g., Jayasingam & Cheng, [32]) or their prototypical leader.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 1a: Autocratic leadership will have a negative effect on the performance that citizens assign to a government leader.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 1b: Democratic leadership will have a positive effect on the performance that citizens assign to a government leader.<\/p>\n
PSM<\/p>\n
Similar to democratic leadership and autocratic leadership, PSM is an often studied concept, albeit mainly in the public administration literature. PSM refers to “an individual’s orientation to delivering services to people with a purpose to do good for others and society” (Perry & Hondeghem, [48], p. vii). This concept originally began as a way to identify the motives of public sector employees and to distinguish them from those of private sector employees (Perry & Wise, [49]). The notion was that public sector employees place greater importance on performing work that benefits society and helps others, while their for-profit counterparts value extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) more. However, the current view is that PSM is not unique to employees in public service organizations; rather it is often imbued in private sector employees as well (Anderson & Kjeldsen, [\u00a02]; Christensen & Wright, [14]; Moynihan & Pandey, [42]; Steen, [56]). Anderson and Kjeldsen ([\u00a02]), for instance, demonstrated that the user orientation motive (i.e., helping others) attributed to PSM is found in the private sector. Additionally, PSM is not limited to workplaces or non-workplaces, although many researchers have examined it in organizational settings. Azhar and Yang ([\u00a04]) showed that PSM affected both workplace and non-workplace behaviors. Therefore, PSM is prevalent throughout society, thus making it a useful factor to study in the general population. PSM is subsequently framed here in terms of a predisposition that citizens in society possess to varying degrees.<\/p>\n
PSM, leadership, and perceptions regarding leaders’ performance<\/p>\n
A key feature of implicit leadership research is that individuals’ rate leaders based on the degree to which the leader matches their prototype (Foti & Luch, [24]) and that these cognitive prototypes are formed through personal experiences, socialization, and even deeply held beliefs and behaviors that reflect altruistic motivation (Den Hartog et al., [20]). As such, altruism is an important factor in this cognitive process. Altruism, which refers to actions designed to benefit others, is also a key component of PSM. In fact, compassion and self-sacrifice (two dimensions in PSM) are associated with altruism (Perry, [46]). This alignment suggests that PSM can influence individual cognitions regarding prototypical leaders.<\/p>\n
Social categorization theory is useful in further understanding the cognitive process in implicit leadership theories (e.g., Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, & Blascovich, [33]). According to this theory, individuals categorize leaders into in-groups and out-groups. These two groups are based on the extent to which the individual and the leader possess similar characteristics, where in-group leaders have similar traits and behaviors as individuals, while out-group leaders have dissimilar ones (Hogg, [30]). Individuals then use these classifications to develop schemas regarding their prototypical leader (Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, [54]). Therefore, the prototypical leader possesses similar attributes as the individual and is also considered a member of an in-group. This suggests that individuals with PSM may prefer a leader that espouses similar attributes, especially since PSM is largely developed through socialization and experiences (e.g., Perry, Brudney, Coursey, & Littlepage, [47]).<\/p>\n
What types of leaders will high PSM individuals likely consider a prototypical leader? Individuals with a PSM predisposition possess several norm-based and affective motives, including a desire to serve the public interest, as well as a commitment to government, generally, and to the social importance of its programs, more specifically (Perry & Wise, [49]). Consequently, high PSM individuals are more motivated as they are given opportunities to serve the public good (Caillier, [\u00a09]; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, [67]). It follows that when public officials create an environment that allows individuals to more effectively serve society by distributing responsibility, empowering workers, and including them in decisions, individuals with high PSM are likely to approve of such leadership efforts. This notion is implied in research that has found a relationship between transformational leadership (a type of democratic leadership) and PSM (Wright et al., [67]). The underlying rationale is that high PSM individuals value democratic leaders because they actively include others in achieving the socially oriented purpose of agencies.<\/p>\n
Since implicit leadership theory posits that individual prototypical leaders serve as a guide for assessing leaders (Shondrick et al., [54]), high PSM individuals will likely rate leaders based on the extent to which their practices are democratic in nature, as argued above. The idea is that individuals with PSM will view leaders through a PSM lens because they value these predispositions and will expect leaders to possess them as well. Consistent with framing theories (e.g., Faulkner et al., [23]), when high PSM individuals read or hear that leaders are practicing democratic leadership, this will reinforce the positive feelings they have about this practice, thus priming them to rate the performance of democratic leaders higher than others possessing lower levels of PSM. In other words, democratic leadership is expected to positively influence the relationship between PSM and performance.<\/p>\n
Conversely, autocratic leaders do not nurture a participatory management environment. Instead, they lead by making decisions in a dictatorial manner, believing that people with similar backgrounds as them are superior and should enjoy certain privileges, and by not tolerating disagreements or dissenting voices (Harms et al., [29]). Due to the monopolization of power, autocratic leadership is likely to limit the contributions individuals can make to society. As a result, high PSM individuals\u2014individuals who value societal service\u2014are likely to see these practices as antithetical to their values. In terms of framing and implicit leadership theories, these practices may then negatively shape how high PSM individuals see the performance of autocratic leaders. The corollary is that these leaders may receive lower ratings from high PSM individuals when compared to their low PSM counterparts. Autocratic leadership is thus expected to negatively affect the relationship between PSM and performance.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 2a: Individuals with high PSM will assign higher performance to democratic leaders than individuals with low PSM.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 2b: Individuals with high PSM will assign lower performance to autocratic leaders than individuals with low PSM.<\/p>\n
Method<\/p>\n
To test the hypotheses, an online survey experiment was used in which respondents were randomly assigned to one of several conditions. In experimental research, online surveys are appropriate in that they are more representative of the general population than are student panels (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, [\u00a06]; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & Oliver, [26]). For instance, online surveys have a diverse group of respondents in terms of age, experience, and geographical region. The online survey was administered in partnership with Qualtrics, a survey company that assists researchers in finding respondents via an online panel. The survey administration involved several steps. First, the author developed the questionnaire. Permission to conduct the study was then obtained from the author’s Institutional Review Board. Next, Qualtrics placed the study on an online dashboard, which allowed potential respondents to view the project and then to participate if it suited their interests. The survey was open from July 16, 2018 to July 20, 2018. A nominal incentive (e.g., choice of either a loyalty point, in-game currency, gift card, etc.) was given to respondents to encourage them to complete the survey. All totaled, 1,202 participants began the project and 599 completed it for a completion rate of 49.83 percent. This completion rate is similar to that of other studies using online panels (Callegaro, RegBaker, G\u00f6ritz, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, [11]), even though it is at the higher end of that range.<\/p>\n
Experimental design<\/p>\n
After respondents chose to participate by clicking on the study in the online dashboard, they were randomly sorted into one of three vignettes. The vignettes that respondents viewed are located in the Appendix. The first vignette corresponds to the control group. This vignette contains information about the performance of a newly hired superintendent who oversees a school district. The second vignette reflects autocratic leadership. It contains the same information as the control group, along with an additional sentence (i.e., cue) that allows the respondent to understand that the superintendent utilized leadership practices consistent with autocratic leadership. These practices were obtained from du Luque, Washburn, Waldman, and House (2008) and included dominating others, making decisions in a dictatorial way, telling subordinates what to do in a commanding way, and forcing values and opinions on others. It could be argued that this cue is negative and thus too strong as a prime. However, autocratic leadership is seen as a harsh practice and these components are consistent with the notion of autocratic leadership in the literature. Moreover, research does suggest that citizens sometimes feel that the end justifies the means in that harsh leadership practices are needed in some cases. This view is often espoused by those who want strong leaders (e.g., Harms et al., [29]), and the present study therefore tests for that effect. The third vignette exemplifies democratic leadership. Similar to the second vignette, it contains the same information as the control group. However, the respondents were also cued to the fact that the superintendent used several democratic leadership approaches identified by Gastil ([25]). These practices involved making changes by involving subordinates in the process, empowering subordinates to carry out tasks, and ensuring that decisions are the result of a consensus.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that the vignettes did not mention any personal characteristics of the superintendent, such as gender or ethnicity. This was done to increase the validity of the results by reducing the possibility of explicit or implicit bias resulting from personal characteristics. Additionally, the governmental entity in the vignettes is a school district. There are several reasons why a school district was chosen. First, school districts are typically the largest and most visible local government organization (Raffel, [51]). Second, schools have well-established outputs (i.e., math and reading scores) that can easily be quantified and identified in short vignettes. These outputs are also publicized and familiar to most citizens. Furthermore, instead of using achievement scores (e.g., 300), the vignettes identified that achievement increased and was higher than the state average. The reference to state average therefore serves as a benchmark. Such a benchmark is similar to what is posted in district report cards throughout the United States. Third, superintendents are typically pillars of the community and student achievement is the most important measure used to judge the performance of these officials (Cronin & Usdan, [15]). Finally, research suggests that superintendents’ managerial style can increase student achievement (Meier & O’Toole, [39]). Therefore, their management style has a large impact on how students perform.<\/p>\n
To determine if autocratic leadership and democratic leadership affect citizen ratings, respondents were asked to rate the performance of the school district’s superintendent from 1 (extremely bad) to 7 (extremely good). In terms of the experiment, if respondents rate the performance of the autocratic leader either lower or higher than the control group, then this means autocratic leadership influences citizens’ views of performance. Likewise, if respondents assign either higher or lower ratings to the democratic leader than the control group, then democratic leadership affects performance views. Recall that the expectation is that democratic leadership will have a positive effect on performance ratings, while autocratic leadership will have a negative effect.<\/p>\n
PSM items were included to test the extent to which prosocial motivation interacts with leadership styles to influence the performance assigned to the agency leader. Five items were included to measure PSM. The items are as follows: 1) meaningful public service is very important to me, 2) I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another, 3) making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements, 4) I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society, and 5) I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed. The scale for each item ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Although this scale does not contain all of the items in Perry’s ([45]) original scale, it is often used in PSM research (Alonso & Lewis, [\u00a01]; Brewer & Selden, [\u00a07]; Caillier, [\u00a09]; Christensen et al., [13]; Kim, [34]; Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, [44]; Wright et al., [67]; Wright & Pandey, [68]). It also contains the affective and normative motives that are most associated with the public service values (Wright & Pandey, [68]) that are likely to influence perceptions about performance in agencies. For instance, the desire to perform meaningful public service, make a difference in society, and make sacrifices for society are values embedded in the mission, goals, and purpose of government agencies. Individuals who possess these motives, therefore, have values that are aligned with the outcomes of public agencies. Furthermore, a factor analysis revealed that these items loaded on one factor, explaining 57 percent of the variance. This demonstrates that these items are best measured as one variable. The Cronbach’s alpha was.81.<\/p>\n
Results<\/p>\n
To determine if respondent characteristics differed across vignettes, an ANOVA was performed. The test revealed that respondents were similar in terms of sex, ethnicity, age, education, and political ideology across the vignettes (p\u00a0>.05). Hence, the randomization was successful. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics. As demonstrated, 22.7 percent of respondents were male, 77.1 percent were Caucasian, the average age was 42.06, 37.4 percent had earned a college degree, and the mean PSM score was 5.38. Table 2 provides more detail by showing demographic percentages within the vignettes. Since males and minorities were under sampled, which is typically the case in similar convenience samples (Caillier, [10]), males and each of the ethnic categories were weighted to better reflect Census data. Research suggests that such weighting reduces biased estimates and thus increases external validity (e.g., Grosso & Van Ryzin, [27]; Groves, [28])<\/p>\n
Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables.<\/p>\n
Variables<\/p>\n
Mean<\/p>\n
Std. Dev.<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
2<\/p>\n
3<\/p>\n
4<\/p>\n
5<\/p>\n
6<\/p>\n
7<\/p>\n
8<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
11<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
13<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
18<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Superintendent performance<\/p>\n
5.843<\/p>\n
1.347<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
2<\/p>\n
Age<\/p>\n
42.058<\/p>\n
16.761<\/p>\n
\u22120.035<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
3<\/p>\n
Male<\/p>\n
0.227<\/p>\n
0.419<\/p>\n
\u22120.013<\/p>\n
.164**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
4<\/p>\n
African-American<\/p>\n
0.089<\/p>\n
0.284<\/p>\n
0.013<\/p>\n
\u2212.086*<\/p>\n
\u22120.037<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
5<\/p>\n
Asian<\/p>\n
0.058<\/p>\n
0.235<\/p>\n
0.009<\/p>\n
\u2212.122**<\/p>\n
\u22120.036<\/p>\n
\u2212.093*<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
6<\/p>\n
Hispanic<\/p>\n
0.060<\/p>\n
0.238<\/p>\n
.150**<\/p>\n
\u2212.287**<\/p>\n
0.004<\/p>\n
\u2212.184**<\/p>\n
\u2212.111**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
7<\/p>\n
Native American<\/p>\n
0.008<\/p>\n
0.091<\/p>\n
0.012<\/p>\n
0.021<\/p>\n
\u2212.117**<\/p>\n
\u22120.047<\/p>\n
\u22120.028<\/p>\n
\u22120.056<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
8<\/p>\n
Caucasian<\/p>\n
0.771<\/p>\n
0.420<\/p>\n
\u2212.119**<\/p>\n
.333**<\/p>\n
0.065<\/p>\n
\u2212.487**<\/p>\n
\u2212.294**<\/p>\n
\u2212.579**<\/p>\n
\u2212.148**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
other_2<\/p>\n
0.013<\/p>\n
0.115<\/p>\n
\u22120.062<\/p>\n
0.014<\/p>\n
0.01<\/p>\n
\u22120.047<\/p>\n
\u22120.028<\/p>\n
\u22120.055<\/p>\n
\u22120.014<\/p>\n
\u2212.147**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
College Degree<\/p>\n
0.374<\/p>\n
0.484<\/p>\n
.100*<\/p>\n
.084*<\/p>\n
.185**<\/p>\n
\u22120.032<\/p>\n
.082*<\/p>\n
\u2212.086*<\/p>\n
\u22120.046<\/p>\n
.086*<\/p>\n
\u2212.095*<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
11<\/p>\n
Democrat<\/p>\n
0.356<\/p>\n
0.479<\/p>\n
0.048<\/p>\n
0.028<\/p>\n
\u22120.058<\/p>\n
.373**<\/p>\n
0.054<\/p>\n
\u22120.055<\/p>\n
0.054<\/p>\n
\u2212.237**<\/p>\n
\u22120.073<\/p>\n
0.062<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
Republican<\/p>\n
0.302<\/p>\n
0.460<\/p>\n
\u22120.019<\/p>\n
0.041<\/p>\n
0.033<\/p>\n
\u2212.247**<\/p>\n
0.02<\/p>\n
\u22120.034<\/p>\n
0.031<\/p>\n
.190**<\/p>\n
\u22120.033<\/p>\n
0.033<\/p>\n
\u2212.491**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
13<\/p>\n
Independent<\/p>\n
0.250<\/p>\n
0.434<\/p>\n
0.021<\/p>\n
\u22120.025<\/p>\n
.099*<\/p>\n
\u2212.144**<\/p>\n
\u22120.054<\/p>\n
.126**<\/p>\n
\u22120.073<\/p>\n
0.012<\/p>\n
.132**<\/p>\n
\u22120.049<\/p>\n
\u2212.477**<\/p>\n
\u2212.383**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
Other<\/p>\n
0.092<\/p>\n
0.289<\/p>\n
\u2212.096*<\/p>\n
\u2212.084*<\/p>\n
\u2212.125**<\/p>\n
\u22120.023<\/p>\n
\u22120.044<\/p>\n
\u22120.057<\/p>\n
\u22120.032<\/p>\n
.096*<\/p>\n
\u22120.032<\/p>\n
\u2212.094*<\/p>\n
\u2212.209**<\/p>\n
\u2212.168**<\/p>\n
\u2212.163**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
PSM<\/p>\n
5.382<\/p>\n
0.966<\/p>\n
.165**<\/p>\n
\u2212.162**<\/p>\n
0.055<\/p>\n
.099*<\/p>\n
\u22120.031<\/p>\n
.133**<\/p>\n
0.017<\/p>\n
\u2212.167**<\/p>\n
0.016<\/p>\n
0.052<\/p>\n
.137**<\/p>\n
\u22120.038<\/p>\n
\u2212.093*<\/p>\n
\u22120.03<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
Autocratic Leadership<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
\u2212.157**<\/p>\n
\u22120.002<\/p>\n
.092*<\/p>\n
\u22120.064<\/p>\n
0.021<\/p>\n
0.043<\/p>\n
\u2212.087*<\/p>\n
0.034<\/p>\n
\u22120.048<\/p>\n
\u22120.025<\/p>\n
\u22120.076<\/p>\n
0.076<\/p>\n
\u22120.004<\/p>\n
0.018<\/p>\n
0.054<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
Democratic Leadership<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
.132**<\/p>\n
\u22120.033<\/p>\n
\u22120.045<\/p>\n
.082*<\/p>\n
0.031<\/p>\n
\u2212.113**<\/p>\n
0.021<\/p>\n
0.01<\/p>\n
0.006<\/p>\n
0.025<\/p>\n
0.022<\/p>\n
\u22120.037<\/p>\n
\u22120.008<\/p>\n
0.038<\/p>\n
\u22120.07<\/p>\n
\u2212.499**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
18<\/p>\n
Control Group<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
\u2013<\/p>\n
0.029<\/p>\n
0.035<\/p>\n
\u22120.048<\/p>\n
\u22120.016<\/p>\n
\u22120.052<\/p>\n
0.068<\/p>\n
0.067<\/p>\n
\u22120.044<\/p>\n
0.042<\/p>\n
0.001<\/p>\n
0.055<\/p>\n
\u22120.041<\/p>\n
0.012<\/p>\n
\u22120.056<\/p>\n
0.015<\/p>\n
\u2212.517**<\/p>\n
\u2212.484**<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
1 Notes: *Significant at the 0.05 level; **Significant at the 0.01 level; ***Significant at the 0.001 level.<\/p>\n
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Respondents in the Three Vignettes.<\/p>\n
Control group<\/p>\n
Autocratic leadership<\/p>\n
Democratic leadership<\/p>\n
Average<\/p>\n
Average<\/p>\n
Average<\/p>\n
Age<\/p>\n
41.98<\/p>\n
42.98<\/p>\n
41.23<\/p>\n
PSM<\/p>\n
5.45<\/p>\n
5.34<\/p>\n
5.35<\/p>\n
Percent<\/p>\n
Number<\/p>\n
Percent<\/p>\n
Number<\/p>\n
Percent<\/p>\n
Number<\/p>\n
Sex<\/p>\n
Male<\/p>\n
20.6<\/p>\n
41<\/p>\n
26.8<\/p>\n
53<\/p>\n
20.8<\/p>\n
42<\/p>\n
Female<\/p>\n
79.4<\/p>\n
158<\/p>\n
73.2<\/p>\n
145<\/p>\n
79.2<\/p>\n
160<\/p>\n
Ethnicity<\/p>\n
African-American<\/p>\n
8.5<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
8.1<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
9.9<\/p>\n
20<\/p>\n
Asian<\/p>\n
4.5<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
6.1<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
6.9<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
Caucasian<\/p>\n
75.9<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Week 4 Discussion\u00a0– Due Week of October 31, 2022 \u00a0 From\u00a0Handbook of Public Administration: Chapter 32, “Embracing Ethical Principles for Public Action.” Chapter 33, “Understanding the Obligations of Codes of Ethics After reviewing the discussion preparation, respond to the following: Discuss approaches to become good at ethical (cultural) leadership. In your narrative, review ways you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-106668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106668","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}